A Serious Question about the GOP and the Tea Party

[Modbert]

Who????

Some lib decides a strawman is our leaders and assigns them to us.

Fuck Grover Norquist and fuck the Koch Brothers.

Last I checked, the majority of Republicans are the ones who put their name are Grover Norquist's Anti-Tax pledge. Nobody forced their hand on it.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Which is why the vast majority of the Tea Party Caucus in Congress voted to extend the Patriot Act.

A vast majority?? there are only like 15 in congress and they all shot it down. Republicans split..

The progressives overwhelmingly voted for it and the progressive asshole Obama signed it.

Hell that document grants authority to rip a persons soul out their chest ...

No libertarian would EVER vote "yay" for such bullshit...

Mudbutt is nothing, if not willfully dishonest.

I think its funny people have ideas on ideas they don't understand.

 

[Oddball]

You used the poll to paint with a broad brush and stereotype...And I called your narrow wet-behind-the-ears ass at it.

Now, get back to your bosco.

Actually I used it to illustrate a point. If you like, I can use even more polls to demonstrate said point. However, you rather not have a discussion, instead lob attacks at me.

I attack willfully dishonest people, as the duplicitous, disingenuous hacks that they certainly are...That's how I roll.

You want to quit it and I will too.

 

[kaz]

Who????

Some lib decides a strawman is our leaders and assigns them to us.

Fuck Grover Norquist and fuck the Koch Brothers.

Last I checked, the majority of Republicans are the ones who put their name are Grover Norquist's Anti-Tax pledge. Nobody forced their hand on it.

So if someone gets support on one issue that makes them "leader?" Al Gore gets all sorts of broad following across the Democratic Party on Global Warming, does that make him the Democratic Party leader?

 

[Modbert]

The rest, and no offense, is just what you want to believe and has little basis in reality.

I never said Rick Santelli started it. I said it's modern roots can be found there. After that, the Tea Party was a entirely different animal.

Also, I'm not alone in my assessment of what many people believe when it comes to the federal budget.

Ryan dings tea partiers on cuts  - Politico.com - The Charleston Gazette - West Virginia News and Sports -

The United States is going to need to go through a period of deep pain, Rep. Paul Ryan is saying, calling out some in the tea party movement who insist that cuts to foreign aid and NPR will go a long way toward eliminating the budget deficit.

“They literally think you can just balance the budget by cutting waste, fraud and abuse, foreign aid and NPR,” the Wisconsin Republican said in an interview with The Associated Press published Friday. “And it doesn’t work like that.”

I'd use a poll from CNN that would further illustrate my point, but it would probably be written-off as being from CNN so I don't see any bother posting it. Unless you want to see it.

 

[Modbert]

So if someone gets support on one issue that makes them "leader?" Al Gore gets all sorts of broad following across the Democratic Party on Global Warming, does that make him the Democratic Party leader?

I never said that makes him their leader. I'm simply saying that the Republicans put themselves in that situation by pledging to Grover's Anti-Tax pledge. If the Democrats vastly signed a pledge from Al Gore, they would put themselves in the same situation.

 

[Modbert]

I attack willfully dishonest people, as the duplicitous, disingenuous hacks that they certainly are...That's how I roll.

You want to quit it and I will too.

Last I checked, you've just attacked me throughout my time in this thread while I've posted further evidence to illustrate my point. Any comment on the Tea Party Caucus massive support for the Patriot Act renewal?

 

[Modbert]

I think its funny people have ideas on ideas they don't understand.

Go address Post #119 in this thread.

 

[Wry Catcher]

My God man are you even reading the discussion? I'll recap for you. You presented definitions of socialism, I pointed out those are my definitions exactly with the point that the definitions specifically refer to government ownership and I pointed out that the true owner of an asset is the entity which controls it. And that is why the Democrats are socialist, everything they fight for is government control over the economy and everything in it. How could I have made that argument if I didn't both read and grasp the definition?

You can disagree with me and make an argument, but you didn't. I directly addressed your points, you completely did not address mine. It is you who aren't reading or grasping the discussion.

You wrote, "Socialism is a centrally planned economy. Rather then arguing the definition of words, why don't you give me an example of anything that Democrats have actually supported during the Obama administration that is not further government control over the economy. Since they are not socialist and they are centrist, they should be pretty split. But I'm only asking for one thing that is not socialist central economic planning that they proposed or actually supported. Go.

I wrote:

"Here's an academic definition quoted from "A Glossary of Political Economy Terms; see:

"Socialism: A Glossary of Political Economy Terms - Dr. Paul M. Johnson

"Socialism
A class of ideologies favoring an economic system in which all or most productive resources are the property of the government, in which the production and distribution of goods and services are administered primarily by the government rather than by private enterprise, and in which any remaining private production and distribution (socialists differ on how much of this is tolerable) is heavily regulated by the government rather than by market processes. Both democratic and non-democratic socialists insist that the government they envision as running the economy must in principle be one that truly reflects the will of the masses of the population (or at least their "true" best interests), but of course they differ considerably in their ideas about what sorts of political institutions and practices are required to ensure this will be so. In practice, socialist economic principles may be combined with an extremely wide range of attitudes toward personal freedom, civil liberties, mass political participation, bureaucracy and political competition, ranging from Western European democratic socialism to the more authoritarian socialisms of many third world regimes to the totalitarian excesses of Soviet-style socialism or communism."

Now, you explain how you conclude Obama and the Democrats are socialists.

The bailout and takeover of GM...

Last time I checked only socialist dictators seized companies.

In the real world you fail or you survive....

Oh yeah - 99% of UAW votes the democrat ticket.

You're an idiot. If GM had not been bailed out the stockholders and employees would have been screwed as well as the small businesses which supplied GM and their emplyees.

Oh yeah, when did you interview all the employees at GM?

 

[Toro]

I wonder if these two "parties" will split during the 2012 Election or unite.

If they each have a candidate to run, along with the democrats and the libertarians, what do you think will happen in the election?

Or do you think the two (GOP and Tea Party) will come together and run one person?

If they are divided, and each runs someone on their ticket, won't that divide the party base of the conservative movement?

The tea party are people who prioritize fiscal issues over social conservatism and military endeavors. I fit that. However, I don't believe in being a "member" of a political organization because I think what I think not what I'm told to think. So I call myself a "supporter" of the tea party.

The answer to your question though is that the tea party isn't Republican, it's an attempted take over of the Republican party. Think of our choices:

Republican - claim to be fiscal conservatives but only put lip service to it while putting social conservatism and military conquests first.

Democrats - socialists who don't really oppose social conservatism other then abortion and go hand in hand with Republican militarism while criticizing Republicans.

Wow, horrible choices. But in this country there are two parties and it's most effective to take one over. That obviously would be the Republican party since they at least pay lip service to fiscal conservatism and Democrats are socialists. It's why Republican leadership try to defeat tea partiers and tea partiers don't care when Republicans who aren't tea partiers lose.

So currently nothing will change. But the thing that could change would be if Democrats who are more fiscally conservative but scared by Republican social conservatism start to identify with the tea party. For that to happen, a "Reagan" is going to have to emerge. There are some candidates for that like Rubio, but no one clearly on that path yet.

I think that's a pretty good description my perception of the Tea Party. However, it seems that some social conservatives and some nutter conservatives have tried to co-opt the Tea Party brand. Many Tea Party types are also religious conservatives, some first and foremost so. I don't see Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann as fiscal conservatives first. I see them as social conservatives first. Many who claimed to be Tea Party supporters were also at the forefront of the batshit crazy "Obama is a Kenyan" movement. So though I sympathize with the fiscal conservatives, it appears that fiscal conservatism is playing less of role than the other wings of the American conservative movement in the Tea Party movement.

 

[kaz]

You're an idiot. If GM had not been bailed out the stockholders and employees would have been screwed as well as the small businesses which supplied GM and their emplyees.

Oh yeah, when did you interview all the employees at GM?

Bailing out GM was clear socialism. You had companies who had been prudent and successful who had to compete with a company that failed and was backed by government money confiscated by government guns. Government bailed them out and set the terms for their continued operation. Failure is a critical part of capitalism. It is socialism where for the greater good the worst company is bailed out and controlled by government and then harms responsible companies who weren't.

 

[WillowTree]

I wonder if these two "parties" will split during the 2012 Election or unite.

If they each have a candidate to run, along with the democrats and the libertarians, what do you think will happen in the election?

Or do you think the two (GOP and Tea Party) will come together and run one person?

If they are divided, and each runs someone on their ticket, won't that divide the party base of the conservative movement?

John McCain won't be on the ticket. I'll tell you that.

 

[kaz]

The tea party are people who prioritize fiscal issues over social conservatism and military endeavors. I fit that. However, I don't believe in being a "member" of a political organization because I think what I think not what I'm told to think. So I call myself a "supporter" of the tea party.

The answer to your question though is that the tea party isn't Republican, it's an attempted take over of the Republican party. Think of our choices:

Republican - claim to be fiscal conservatives but only put lip service to it while putting social conservatism and military conquests first.

Democrats - socialists who don't really oppose social conservatism other then abortion and go hand in hand with Republican militarism while criticizing Republicans.

Wow, horrible choices. But in this country there are two parties and it's most effective to take one over. That obviously would be the Republican party since they at least pay lip service to fiscal conservatism and Democrats are socialists. It's why Republican leadership try to defeat tea partiers and tea partiers don't care when Republicans who aren't tea partiers lose.

So currently nothing will change. But the thing that could change would be if Democrats who are more fiscally conservative but scared by Republican social conservatism start to identify with the tea party. For that to happen, a "Reagan" is going to have to emerge. There are some candidates for that like Rubio, but no one clearly on that path yet.

I think that's a pretty good description my perception of the Tea Party. However, it seems that some social conservatives and some nutter conservatives have tried to co-opt the Tea Party brand. Many Tea Party types are also religious conservatives, some first and foremost so. I don't see Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann as fiscal conservatives first. I see them as social conservatives first. Many who claimed to be Tea Party supporters were also at the forefront of the batshit crazy "Obama is a Kenyan" movement. So though I sympathize with the fiscal conservatives, it appears that fiscal conservatism is playing less of role than the other wings of the American conservative movement in the Tea Party movement.

There is nothing counter to being a religious conservative and a tea partier. Many religious conservatives think that social conservatism is their job and not the government's. And sure, politicians are trying to leverage the party for their own advantage be they social conservatives or moderates, but they don't follow through like on the budget deal where the true tea partiers refused to be bought off and they refused to vote for the pathetically low cuts in the "deal." The fakes identify themselves soon enough.

 

[mudwhistle]

Who????

Some lib decides a strawman is our leaders and assigns them to us.

Fuck Grover Norquist and fuck the Koch Brothers.

Last I checked, the majority of Republicans are the ones who put their name are Grover Norquist's Anti-Tax pledge. Nobody forced their hand on it.

I would say in response, and would be correct in that response, that they have common interests and aren't ruled or led by Grover Norquist as was implied.

It's like Liberals that seem to say many of the same anti-Semitic things as Islamic fundamentalists, but that is where it ends.

 

[Modbert]

I would say in response, and would be correct in that response, that they have common interests and aren't ruled or led by Grover Norquist as was implied.

It's like Liberals that seem to say many of the same anti-Semitic things as Islamic fundamentalists, but that is where it ends.

So if they just have common interests, why did they bother to sign Grover Norquist's pledge? They could just pledge themselves to not raise taxes.

Your attack on Liberals is also pretty pathetic.

 

[mudwhistle]

You wrote, "Socialism is a centrally planned economy. Rather then arguing the definition of words, why don't you give me an example of anything that Democrats have actually supported during the Obama administration that is not further government control over the economy. Since they are not socialist and they are centrist, they should be pretty split. But I'm only asking for one thing that is not socialist central economic planning that they proposed or actually supported. Go.

I wrote:

"Here's an academic definition quoted from "A Glossary of Political Economy Terms; see:

"Socialism: A Glossary of Political Economy Terms - Dr. Paul M. Johnson

"Socialism
A class of ideologies favoring an economic system in which all or most productive resources are the property of the government, in which the production and distribution of goods and services are administered primarily by the government rather than by private enterprise, and in which any remaining private production and distribution (socialists differ on how much of this is tolerable) is heavily regulated by the government rather than by market processes. Both democratic and non-democratic socialists insist that the government they envision as running the economy must in principle be one that truly reflects the will of the masses of the population (or at least their "true" best interests), but of course they differ considerably in their ideas about what sorts of political institutions and practices are required to ensure this will be so. In practice, socialist economic principles may be combined with an extremely wide range of attitudes toward personal freedom, civil liberties, mass political participation, bureaucracy and political competition, ranging from Western European democratic socialism to the more authoritarian socialisms of many third world regimes to the totalitarian excesses of Soviet-style socialism or communism."

Now, you explain how you conclude Obama and the Democrats are socialists.

The bailout and takeover of GM...

Last time I checked only socialist dictators seized companies.

In the real world you fail or you survive....

Oh yeah - 99% of UAW votes the democrat ticket.

You're an idiot. If GM had not been bailed out the stockholders and employees would have been screwed as well as the small businesses which supplied GM and their emplyees.

Oh yeah, when did you interview all the employees at GM?

The bailout of GM and Chrysler was a cover to pay for union pensions and benefits by the Federal government. They would have survived. Ford survived without a bailout.

 

[BDBoop]

That would be correct.

And Shrub was a total neocon...Lots of idiotic and endless domestic spending and expansion of bureaucracy at home, lots of military empire abroad.

Moreover, if you're going to take one poll about one aspect of the movement and try to use it to paint a picture of the overall movement, you're either incredibly simpleminded or willfully dishonest.

In the case of Mudbutt, I'll be going with the latter.

I just used that poll as an example to a larger point. Just about every other poll reflects the point I've made. As does the voting by the Tea Party Caucus.

Or are you going to try and sell me that their vast support for the Patriot Act was them defending liberty?

The truth about Rick Santelli's rant, for those not all on the same page.

Rick Santelli’s Planted Rant ? | The Big Picture

 

[mudwhistle]

I would say in response, and would be correct in that response, that they have common interests and aren't ruled or led by Grover Norquist as was implied.

It's like Liberals that seem to say many of the same anti-Semitic things as Islamic fundamentalists, but that is where it ends.

So if they just have common interests, why did they bother to sign Grover Norquist's pledge? They could just pledge themselves to not raise taxes.

Your attack on Liberals is also pretty pathetic.

I don't know why. Why does anyone sign a pledge. Personally I think it's stupid to do such a thing.

I'd like a link btw.

Where's the link that shows all of these folks signing a pledge?

 

[Modbert]

I don't know why. Why does anyone sign a pledge. Personally I think it's stupid to do such a thing.

I'd like a link btw.

Where's the link that shows all of these folks signing a pledge?

I don't know why the Republicans would sign a pledge. You'll have to ask them since they're all pledge happy except Jon Huntsman and Gary Johnson.

Here's the list:

Americans for Tax Reform :: What is the Taxpayer Protection Pledge?

 

[Wry Catcher]

You're an idiot. If GM had not been bailed out the stockholders and employees would have been screwed as well as the small businesses which supplied GM and their emplyees.

Oh yeah, when did you interview all the employees at GM?

Bailing out GM was clear socialism. You had companies who had been prudent and successful who had to compete with a company that failed and was backed by government money confiscated by government guns. Government bailed them out and set the terms for their continued operation. Failure is a critical part of capitalism. It is socialism where for the greater good the worst company is bailed out and controlled by government and then harms responsible companies who weren't.

You're full of digested bull feed. GM was too big to fail. The loss of thousands (tens of?) jobs would have echoed beyond GM and it's suppliers. more homes would have foreclosed, more bills unpaid, more small business failures and many more unemployed; that has not happened. Your kind of ideological purity is keeping us in economic malaise, a little pragmatic thinking is required.